October 06, 2012

1,400 US Pastors to Challenge IRS Non-profit Blackmail Tradition

On October 7, 2012, over 1,400 pastors across the US are going to take a step in line with what their conscience dictates, not necessarily with what the US Government dictates.

Have you ever wondered why pastors in the US often seem to avoid discussing current political events? There has been one very strong reason, among others. A law passed in 1954 has basically been effective as a form of blackmail helping to keep pastors silent. The legal definition of blackmail does not necessarily involve the payment of money by the victim.

No matter what the initial intended purpose, the Johnson Amendment has helped to instill a sense of fear of regarding the discussion of any political issues around election time. The IRS retains the right to remove the non-profit status of any church which it determines has helped to support any particular candidate.
The creation of the Johnson Amendment in 1954 was self-serving, designed by Senator Lyndon B. Johnson himself specifically for the purpose of helping him to win an election by intimidation, essentially squelching political comments by conservative opponents who, guess what, tend to meet in churches.

Losing this non-profit status, of course, would deal a financial blow to a church because people would be less likely to give donations if they were not tax deductible. And this is why the political endorsement ban has basically been a form of blackmail. It is basically buying silence. I met a missionary from Germany who said they have complete freedom to discuss politics in the pulpit there in that country without reprisals. It could be that they learned some lessons from the Hitler episode. The US has not been afforded any such learning experiences. In any event, these pastors are willing to take such financial risks in order to follow what their conscience dictates, even if it is considered controversial. It would have perhaps been more effective for the pastors to start speaking about candidates at the primaries when Ron Paul was still a viable candidate. Unfortunately, both Obama and Romney seem quite comfortable in helping to maintain the entrenched corruption in the status quo US economic-political system. Read more about the challenge to political endorsement at this CNN link.

“[T]hey are simply applying Scripture and theological doctrine to the positions held by the candidates running for office,” he said. “Pastors have been applying scriptural teaching to circumstances facing their congregations for centuries. “This is not ‘political’ speech,” he said. “Rather, it’s core religious expression from a spiritual leader to his congregants. That kind of expression is at the very center of the freedom speech and religion protections in the First Amendment.”

A brief debate on the subject posted in the L.A. Times offers two contrasting views by Christians Erik Stanley and Barry W. Lynn. Erik Stanley is senior legal counsel and head of the Pulpit Initiative for the Alliance Defense Fund, a legal alliance of Christian attorneys and organizations defending the right of people to freely live out their faith. The Rev. Barry W. Lynn is executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State. He is an ordained minister in the United Church of Christ and a longtime civil liberties attorney.

“In 2004 the IRS created a dedicated enforcement program focused on political activity by churches and other nonprofits. Called the Political Activities Compliance Initiative (PACI), it investigated in the 2004, 2006 and 2008 election cycles 80 instances where church officials were alleged to have endorsed a candidate during services. According to IRS tallies made public after each election, the majority of the PACI complaints were upheld and settled with a warning that the organization comply with the ban on political activity. The IRS did not respond to Reuters questions about its enforcement activities in recent years, or explain why they seem to have ended abruptly in 2009.”

My opinion is that a Christian pastors should follow their conscience, whether or not non-profit status is retained. And Christians in general should tithe their income cheerfully as towards God, whether or not non-profit status is retained.

Tags: pulpit freedom Sunday, pastors versus IRS, blackmail of US pastors challenged, political endorsement ban challenged, pastors who follow their conscience not their treasury account, can US pastors talk about politics? IRS ban on church politics, ban on church political expression, politically correct church, why pastors fear IRS

32 comments:

Losing this status, of course, would deal a financial blow because people would be less likely to give donations if they were not tax deductible.

So, people won't give to churches unless it's tax deductible, therefore churches should be allowed to do whatever they want while remaining tax deductible? Talk about not being willing to put their money where their mouth is.

It could be that they learned some lessons from the Hitler episode.

You mean the part where many Christian churches supported the Nazi party over the Democratic Socialists before the election?

In any event, these pastors are willing to take such financial risks in order to follow what their conscience dictates, even if it is considered controversial.

Good for them. And if they lose their tax-exempt status for violating the law, they will be receiving the consequences of their actions. So be it.

Out of not-at-all idle curiosity, do you support Native American churches using peyote as part of their religious rituals?

Unfortuntely, there are are people like Imnotandrei who come to blogs to offer slander and misinformation. When it comes to civilized discourse there does not seem to be a possibility of such with these types of commenters. Because I do not wish to have comment moderating and screening, I have to put up with such antics on occasion. After a prolonged game of cat and mouse, Imnotandrei finally admitted September 10 that he had made a false claim about an article:

Yet, even though he admitted this at 7.44 AM, by 10.26 AM he was back at it, calling me a liar. Imnotandrei has claimed my article here is a lie because famous atheist apologists today do supposedly utilize logic properly and adequately in their lives and arguments. He cited Stephen Law as an example. However, Law had displayed a low regard for logic and logical principles in his attitude as a professional philosopher.

When I asked Law to present a summary of his favorite argument , his EGC argument, he stated, "The argument is already out there in various forms, Rick." In accordance with the bare minimum of logical consequence, the form and wording of an argument are highly important and so we can see that Law does not seem to hold a high regard for very basic logical principles. Thus, Imnotandrei's knee-jerk claim that I am a "liar" is shown to be unsubstantiated. I simply do not have time to chase down all of Imnotandrei's slander and correct him. And I find his knee-jerk and habitual slanderous statements to make it quite impossible to carry on a civilized discourse. If there are any atheists who are able to carry on a civilized debate, I would welcome it.

Unfortuntely, there are are people like Imnotandrei who come to blogs to offer slander and misinformation.

And people like Rick, who post blogs full of the stuff. Given your own history of misrepresentation, you have no moral high ground here, Rick.

When it comes to civilized discourse there does not seem to be a possibility of such with these types of commenters.

Welcome to the attack ad hominem, which, until recently, Rick explicitly asked people not to use; now he has replaced it with a slur on "atheist slanderers."

Finally, a warning to all who would debate with Rick: If you have a history of backing Rick into a corner, and you make one mistake, he will declare you a "slanderer" as his excuse to disengage. He's now done this more than once.

Oh! The agony! Separation of the Church and State is a tragedy. What a pity we do not live in a theocracy like in Sudan, where you could get ten lashes for naming your Teddy Bear Mohammed. Do you also grieve about the abolishment of slavery, Rick? You have lost your precious right to beat a slave half to death. The only thing you should be careful of is not to let your slave die on the first day after the beating. Indeed, living by the bible makes one a better person.

And it is trully despicable that tax exempt organization are banned from political activities. It seems to be a really tragedy for Churches, since the only reason most people donate to them is because those donation are tax deductible according to you, Rick. And for some reason no miracles from the all-mighty dictator in the sky. Is heaven a little short of cash? We are in a financial world crisis after all.

You know, the churches in the States are spoiled rotten in my opinion: They want all the privileges (not paying taxes) but none of the responsibility. (staying neutral in regards to political candidates and whatnot).

The lost revenue due to religious institutions being classified as non-profit without actually having to carry out the standard non-profit activities (ie. charities, whether secular or religious) is worth some USD$70 billion per year.

Does anyone think that perhaps that money could be better spent elsewhere - healthcare perhaps?

If political speech is so important to these people, then why don't they simply give up their tax exempt status?If they have more important priorities than partisan politics, then they are able to keep their tax exempt status, just like other organisations which fall under that section of the code

My opinion is that a Christian pastor should follow his conscience, whether or not non-profit status is retained. And Christian should tithe their income cheerfully as towards God, whether or not non-profit status is retained.

I suspect Rick saw the initial report and simply assumed it was another case of those "Evil Secularists" silencing the "Truth".

I would hope, after reading the link in the above comment, especially the part by Rev Barry Lynn, that Rick would be mature enough to admit that his calling the IRS "Blackmailers", and siding with the Pastors on this one was a mistake.

Of course, Rick doesn't admit mistakes like that, as most of us know, and so we'll not see any sort of retraction from Rick.

Rick, like all religious hypocrites, wants to have his cake and eat it, too. Unlike the mythical Jesus, upon whom they supposedly base their beliefs, he and his ilk expect OTHERS to pay the price for acting according to their consciences. Hence, all the conscience clauses that allow inane anti-contraception dogma to trump a woman's right to her legally prescribed medication, thus disallowing women to act according to their consciences. And let's not forget the incessant bleating that allowing women to obtain copay-free contraception using insurance they've earned or paid for is somehow a restriction of their religious freedom. What Rick Warden and his ilk refuse to acknowledge is that religious freedom is for the individual to practice or not according to their own conscience. It is not freedom for religious institutions (especially those who receive direct taxpayer subsidies) to impose their evidence-free superstitions regarding contraception and sexuality on those who do not share their views. Strictly religious institutions, of course, already get an unwarranted free pass to discriminate against their female employees, but that just isn't enough for them.

I think everyone is entitled to freedom of speech, but I think this has taken it over the edge. I think the IRS will respond to this pretty hard. I mean the most that the IRS wants to worry about is collecting tax and handing an irs wage levy out. It is insane that the pastors would combine forces, but if they feel this will make a difference, than by all means I suppose.

A person who is truly free and considers himself free will speak freely. A monetary reprisal, or even a prison cell, would not take away that freedom.

Reynold asked why I would call the present IRS policy a form of blackmail. This monetary penalty seems to operate as a form of blackmail. In hindsight, it seems there are occasions when the discussion of severe human rights abuses and crimes by politicians are quite appropriate. Even atheist writers will attest to this:

"With hindsight we can say that the churches did much too little. A more public, less equivocal condemnation of what the Nazis were doing would have bought great pressure to bear through public opinion."

The ONLY restraint that American churches have is that they cannot openly endorse a candidate for office from the pulpit (basically, tell people how to vote). No one is been prosecuted for voicing their opinion on politics in America and you are a liar if you claim otherwise.

If you think that it is that important and churches should tell people how to vote (of course, individuals are incapable of making their own choice), then you should just opt for the cancellation of the tax exempt status of churches.

It also seems that you have mixed up the sides who are being "blackmailed". Usually it is the victim that pays the money and not the blackmailer. 8)

R:No one here is making that claim. I was simply responding to a comment on the nature of free speech and what freedom means by offering some extreme examples.

You claim that the IRC somehow hinders the freedom of speech. And that is a lie. To quote you:

"A law passed in 1954 has basically been effective as a form of blackmail helping to keep pastors silent. No matter what the initial intended purpose, this has been the practical effect of the non-political endorsement law which specifically forbids churches and pastors from endorsing a particular political candidate but basically instills a fear of speaking about politics on any level."

No one is keeping anyone silent or instills fear of speaking. Hence, you are a liar, Rick.

>No one is keeping anyone silent or instills fear of speaking. Hence, you are a liar, Rick.

- Why is it that almost every atheist who comments at my blog feels the need to slander? You still have not accepted the fact that Dawkins made illogical excuses for not debating Craig, and the slander keeps rolling on.

The creation of the Johnson Amendment in 1954 was self-serving, designed by Senator Lyndon B. Johnson himself specifically for the purpose of helping him to win an election by squelching political comments by conservative opponents who, guess what, tend to meet in churches.

Why is it that almost every atheist who comments at my blog feels the need to slander?

It's not slander if it's true, Rick. And when you repeatedly lie, people call you a liar.

You still have not accepted the fact that Dawkins made illogical excuses for not debating Craig, and the slander keeps rolling on.

That's because people keep disagreeing with you, Rick; it's not a "fact" to be accepted, it's your opinion, with which people disagree.

The creation of the Johnson Amendment in 1954 was self-serving, designed by Senator Lyndon B. Johnson himself specifically for the purpose of helping him to win an election by squelching political comments by conservative opponents who, guess what, tend to meet in churches.

Your link presents the assertion, but no backup for the claim you make. Can you find any real supporting evidence, or just someone saying so?

No lies here in this story

"Producing a consequence for speaking" is not "keeping someone silent". Hence, saying that people were kept silent would be, guess what, a lie.

By the way, Anonymous, do you still believe it is logical for Dawkins to refuse to debate Craig because of Dawkins' claim that Craig is involved too much in self promotion?

I notice now that you've refined down your many claims to this one; and even that one misrepresented. Why should Dawkins help Craig self-promote by debating him, when there's nothing in it for Dawkins? That's the whole point of the "Good on your CV, not so good on mine" line.

R:Why is it that almost every atheist who comments at my blog feels the need to slander?

Denial is not a river in Egypt

R:The creation of the Johnson Amendment in 1954 was self-serving, designed by Senator Lyndon B. Johnson himself specifically for the purpose of helping him to win an election...

And that is a red herring. The initial purpose of the law is completely irrelevent to the issue at hand. People should use their own head do decide who to vote for and not to rely on authority be it secular or theist. That is all.

R:No lies here in this story, just your lying slanderous commentary.

You made the following claim. I will quote again:

"No matter what the initial intended purpose, this has been the practical effect of the non-political endorsement law which specifically forbids churches and pastors from endorsing a particular political candidate BUT BASICALLY INSTILLS A FEAR OF SPEAKING ABOUT POLITICS ON ANY LEVEL"

You failed to prove that claim. On the other hand, Rev. Barry W. Lunn gave several examples where churche ministers spoke on political issues without fear. Either prove that a fear of speaking about politics exist in Churches or accept that the following assertion is a lie.

R:By the way, Anonymous, do you still believe it is logical for Dawkins to refuse to debate Craig because of Dawkins' claim that Craig is involved too much in self promotion?

Read my comments on the adequate thread. I have told you before that Dawkins has no reason to debate Craig in the first place. Hence, it is logical for Dawkins to refuse since Craig is disgusting mass murder apologist, Dawkins has better things to do and since there is no merit for Dawkins in such a debate.

R:Do you seriously believe that Craig promotes himself more than Richard Dawkins with his multiple and continuous book tours and book signing extravaganzas?

To quote imnotandrei:

"I notice now that you've refined down your many claims to this one; and even that one misrepresented. Why should Dawkins help Craig self-promote by debating him, when there's nothing in it for Dawkins? That's the whole point of the "Good on your CV, not so good on mine" line."

Rick, it's now been nearly a week since your last comment on this thread. You continually whine about not having much time when people try to get you to respond, but I don't think writing a single sentence such as "I was wrong to label the IRS as blackmailers in this" or perhaps "The story the Pastors are telling is innacuaret and I was foolish to accept it without doing further research"

Anything like that would be a step up from your usual behaviour of denial and blame shifting. Anything like that would demonstrate that you actually have some small amount of care concerning the truth of the claims you make, and in being honest. How about being mature for once on your blog and admitting your mistake(s)? :-)

The commenter Havok has been unable to challenge philosophical articles underscoring the truth of God's existence. It is perhaps easier for him to try and 'raise Havok' by making truth claims at posts that have nothing to do with philosophical arguments.

With regard to the question of slander and Internet etiquette, most commenters seem to believe that ignoring a person who slanders is probably the best solution. If there are any atheists who believe Havok has offered something worthwhile, I would be willing to discuss it with a civilized person. However, Havok seems unable to discuss and debate ideas without resorting to childish slander.

In good news, the FFRF are suing the IRS for not acting against nonprofits which are violating the conditions of their nonprofit status:http://ffrf.org/news/news-releases/item/16091-ffrf-sues-irs-to-enforce-church-electioneering-ban